Stem Cell Research

[Skippy 82]

Fine, they just use embryonic stem cell research from discarded human embryos from IVF now, but what about after those embryos run out? Then these research groups will start creating embryos for the express purpose of destroying them in research. I still believe it is on the same level as cannibalism, and I will never agree to undergo any procedure using embryonic stem cells, and I will continue to protest their use.

Which brings me to your point about Bush. He was well within his rights as an individual to protest their use and to advocate organizations that work against their use. He has the right to do anything within his power as an individual to protest anything he finds immoral, and to stop taxpayer money from going to research many Americans find immoral as the president. He did not overstep his boundaries as president in any way in that regard.

It doesn't change the fact that its support from private investors has been minimal. They understand the fact that embryonic stem cell research has little probability of success, and even if it is successful, those success would probably be surpassed by adult stem cell research. I will admit it is possible embryonic stem cells could be more useful, but extremely unlikely.

1) They will never run out as long as people are doing IVF. That's kinda the beauty of using them.

And good for you, if you don't want anything to do with it, that's your choice. That's always been my point. I don't want to force people to go use embryonic stem cells every day, but just to allow them to be used for research for those who one day may use them.

2) Yes, well within his rights as a person, but not as a president. If he was doing it privately, or today, great for him. But openly as a president is over stepping your political bounds. As president, it's not your job to do what you see as moral, but what the majority of Americans see as moral. That's what congress and the supreme court are for.

3) And when most private firms ask why they don't support it, They will tell you because of pressure from religious groups. They are operating a business, and cannot afford to have the Arch diocese on their front door step yelling about what they are doing. Many private institutions are attempting research overseas or on international waters to avoid just that. Many people want to do it, but don't want the heat from (Generally Conservative, Christian) Religious groups.

That's all I want right now, Use waste to do possibly hugely beneficial research. I'm not even talking treatment right now, but research. If you don't like how it's done, don't get any eventual procedures, but please don't stop hope for those who could benefit.

[Vadarth X 0]

People who are against embryonic stem cell research are against it because they believe they are saving lives, which makes them feel good. So, no matter what you say or do, those people will never back down because they are selfish and want to feel good.

Embryos are eggs. No thoughts at all. They are like chicken eggs. Nothing. Nada. It's not killing if it's not alive, or at least thinking. Embryos do not think, just like trees, and we kill thousands of trees a day. Instead of arguing this passionately against embryonic stem cell research, Aethix, you should be using that energy to protest against the cutting down of rain forests, which is much worse than embryonic stem cell research, cause that can and will kill millions to billions of organic oxygen-breathing life on this planet, while destroying an embryo will kill no one. In fact, it will save millions.

If it's not thinking (let alone sentient), then it gets no rights. It would be the same as giving chicken eggs rights.

Cannibalism is the act of eating a member of one's own species. We are not eating those embryos, are we? If you consider killing them eating, then I guess the entire human race is made up of cannibals - just look at all of those wars!

Another thing: more cells are killed in a nose bleed than in killing one embryo. Plus, cells are barely even alive.

I guarantee that if someone in your family (or you) had something that could be cured with embryonic stem cells, you'd change your mind in a heartbeat.

Also, many embryos don't even make it to the fetal stage.

Edited 21 May 2009 by Vadarth X (see edit history)

[Aethix 129]

Seriously? You think trees are more important than human babies? You use the argument that embryos are not really alive, but keep in mind, slave owners used the argument that their slaves weren't really human.

[Vadarth X 0]

Except that in this case, embryos really aren't alive. And yes, trees are more important because they affect EVERY OXYGEN BREATHING ANIMAL ON THE PLANET, whereas embryos only affect ONE, and could be used to save MILLIONS.

And embryos aren't babies, else they would be called such. They are just cells, which almost always DIE before becoming a fetus.

Edited 21 May 2009 by Vadarth X (see edit history)

[Aethix 129]

Hey, the slave owners said slaves weren't really people. But let me ask you this one question: if embryos aren't alive, when does an embryo come to life and become human?

[Vadarth X 0]

Slaves and embryos are two completely different things, which I would think would be obvious.

Well, it depends on one's definition of "alive", but a person can clearly see that slaves were not only alive, but sentient, while cells are alive but only to the extent that a machine is alive. Cells just go through the motions, like a machine. No thought, no sentience. My definition of alive would be when the cell begins to actually "think" (notice I do not put "sentience", for animals are not sentient, yet they can think, therefore classifying them as being alive).

Also, slave owners were moronic, despicable people who used the "they are not alive" lie so that they could keep those slaves and be justified in doing so, but if slaves were not alive, you couldn't even use them as slaves!

Edited 22 May 2009 by Vadarth X (see edit history)

[Aethix 129]

Uh-huh. So when do embryos start to "think"?

[Chase 390]

I always put myself in the shoes of the person, or in this case, the embryo, so I would rather have a chance at life than be killed before I could even make decisions. Trees aren't human, Vadarth, and I realize you don't believe in God, so this next statement may not mean much to you, but humans are more important than trees. Humans have souls, they have the ability to choose right from wrong and have independent thought. A tree is merely alive biologically, it can't reason itself out of being a tree, that's what it is. A human embryo has a soul, and when it gets older it will be a human being just like you and me. It will make decisions and choose what kind of life it will lead. You said yourself that dogs aren't "sentient" beings, well neither are trees. I'm not sure trees even "think" so by your definition of alive trees aren't alive at all.

[Vadarth X 0]

First of all, souls are unproven, and so cannot be used as evidence, although I do believe in them, though probably in a different way than you. In my mind, every creature that thinks has a soul. Seeing as an embryo does not think, it would not have a soul. It is merely a vessel. Once it begins to think, that's the sign/mark of a soul.

Trees support every oxygen breather on this planet, so of course they're more important; if we kill all of them, we kill ourselves plus almost every other oxygen breathing life form on this planet.

@Aethix: I have no idea. But I would think that it would start very late in the fetal stage. Though not as an embryo, which has been proven to have no thought of any kind, as someone mentioned earlier.

[Chase 390]

What separates a brain from a mind? If we have no soul, what is it that gives us such complex thought?

How do you know embryos don't think? Did you find this out yourself or simply believe something someone told you?

Trees do provide us with oxygen, but should every tree in the world be cut down (Which is highly unlikely) the ocean provides us with enough oxygen to sustain life. I would just go live on the coast.

[Vadarth X 0]

Well, I did say we have souls.

Actually, it was tested and proven, but if you don't believe those results obtained from repeated experiments and observations because it was just told to you and you did not see it yourself, the same can be applied towards God, yet you believe in him.

Actually, if trees were gone, there would be no oxygen in the air. We would not have the time nor technology/equipment necessary to save us from that fate. And if we did, there's no way we could save the entire planet and all of its life (which would mess up the food chain), plus taking oxygen out of the water leaves just hydrogen, which isn't a very good substance to let hang around in large quantities. Also, that would mean a decrease in water, which would mess up the food chain more. Plus, all of that would have great and bad changes on the Earth, many unforeseen. You know, we probably should stop talking about trees seeing as this isn't a tree topic. If you want to keep talking about them, make a new topic for them; I would gladly continue to talk about them there.

[Chase 390]

Actually, I know God's real because he fills me with his spirit. That's something I actually felt. I know you don't believe in him and you haven't felt his presence, so if you don't believe me that's ok. It took me a long time before I came to him, I know what it's like to live without believing. Not fun.

I know you said that you believe we have souls. But your definition of soul is different than mine. And everyone else's for that matter.

Here are the dictionary.com definitons of soul:

soul  [sohl]

[Vadarth X 0]

Na, I believe that all thinking beings have souls. One of the definitions there say it is the emotional part of human nature. Feelings and such. Many animals have emotions. Dogs. Monkeys and apes. And more. The only difference between them and us is that they are not aware that they are aware, which is sentience, while we are.

Let me change that - like not believing that all around us are atoms. We were told, but have we seen them for our selves? No (at least I haven't). True that you can't always take what someone tells you for granted, but you can't take everything people tell you to be wrong unless you see it; that's just madness.

Indeed, back on topic: Now while that is very true, the chances of that happening are one to a trillion. Not only is it very likely the embryo will die before entering the fetus stage, but the chances of that person it evolves into finding such a cure is also slim. What you said can be applied to every single one of those embryos, but it's not going to happen with all of them. Very few, in fact. And so the things we could find/fix/cure with embryonic stem cells greatly outweighs the chance that that one embryo could evolve into a person who happens to find a cure to a life-threatening disease.

Another thing: these embryos don't have rights. Since they don't think, and are not sentient, and souls cannot be proven (with modern technology), cells don't get to have rights.

In my opinion, the benefits greatly outweigh the detriments when it comes to stem cell research. Just because it has a minute chance of being someone, and then being someone good and maybe even helpful/important should not stop research that could save millions.

Also, as someone said earlier, embryos are being tossed/destroyed daily. Instead of being just garbage, they could be instruments to finding curse to many things. But no, rather than let embryos be used for science and the help of others (God forbid!), they should be just thrown out, wasted.

[Aethix 129]

@Aethix: I have no idea. But I would think that it would start very late in the fetal stage. Though not as an embryo, which has been proven to have no thought of any kind, as someone mentioned earlier.

Exactly. Should we be risking killing what could be a living thinking human being? I think not. And just because we can't detect consciousness, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Vadarth X 0]

Actually, yes, that's exactly what it means. A cell cannot think; it just doesn't have the complexities to do so. It's a simple machine. Plus, to have consciousness, you kind of need a brain. It's an unfortunate limitation for living beings.

As I said before, the chance that it will evolve into a human is slight at best (that's why they put more than one inside the womb).